backcountry users beware!!

[deadheadskier]

I suppose it is a compromise in a sense. The reality is that it's doubtful I make it to Jay this winter and if I went, even more doubtful that I head out to Big Jay. But....there was a time when I lived in the region and skied Big Jay a couple of times a winter. If that were today, I would never ski the cut, but I also wouldn't hike for those turns. For one, I don't have skins, but even if I did, it's just not my cup of tea. I'm not adverse to hiking for turns, but there's a limit to how much I'm willing to do. I hiked the Chin regularly at Stowe, but that's only 45 minutes up 600 vert to enjoy close to 3000 vert down. I would be unwilling to hike two plus hours up Big Jay for what? 1500 vert even though the terrain is sick.

So, I guess it's guys like me, the 'slack country' skiers if you will that are being hurt the most by the two idiots who cut the 'gash'. I personally don't view that as a compromise, though I agree with Dave that it probably eliminates 90% of the populus that might poach the gash.

Like I said, it's doubtful I ski Big Jay in the near future, but if I could, (which would only be via the ridge trail) I certainly would avoid 'the gash' and report anyone skiing it.

The fact that they still allow access from 242 is great, but to me it is kind of an elitist/exclusive mentality. I recognize the goal in mind is environmental reclamation, but if that's the case, shouldn't all back country access points via lifts be eliminated for consistency purposes? Like I said earlier, shouldn't people be prohibited from hiking the Chin, going in to the back bowls via Smuggs etc? I'm not saying they should, I'm just asking the question.

[riverc0il]

Stuff off the Chin at Mansfield and Back Bowls at Smuggs were mentioned at the meeting. The state wants to crack down on anything not natural and cut in those areas as well. As previously mentioned, the state knew this stuff was going on but was not really doing anything about it. Big Jay cut changed that. There really isn't anything cut over there that can compare to the cut on Big Jay but it sounds like it will be an issue going forward. Doubtful access will be restricted because there has not been massive damage done on par with the Big Jay cut plus there are natural lines to be skied up there.

[riverc0il]

I have a full write up of the meeting details here. Unfortunately, I forgot to bring a pen and paper, so I am sure I missed some key and important points that were addressed either during the presentation or during question and answer. I have also included PDF files of the agenda and hand outs documented some details about the cut and the area. Should have a personal response and my thoughts regarding what approach would be best by the community. Still working on back dating some articles for historical purposes but having trouble finding some, specifically the Burlington Free Press write ups if any one has them archived. Will also gather links to all current forum discussions on going about the issue and specifically about community organization. Not enough time tonight.

[bvibert]

Nice work Steve, thanks for the write-up and archival of articles.

[tcharron]

Originally Posted by thetrailboss

Cutting down trees has a year-round impact. That snow and ice melts and will take the soil with it if trees are not holding it in place.

Older post, but I suspect what he meant was, 'What possible harm would skiing on the cut do?' Would it erode less if not skied on?

Not advocating, but I suspect thats what the original poster meant.

[riverc0il]

Originally Posted by bvibert

Nice work Steve, thanks for the write-up and archival of articles.

Thanks. I have added a dedicated category on my web site for coverage of the issue. This need to get my thoughts up... hopefully by Christmas.